From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 313 active users here.



audio works[edit]

I propose that works produced in an audio format be incorporated into our collection as separate versions and that inclusion be emphasised within the defined scope of wikisource. This would include works that are termed audio books, spoken word, talking books, and so on, but not necessarily limited to those products.

As I see it, the solution to making these works available is to link them from their title in mainspace. This allows more bibliographic data to be appended, rather than an icon appearing at the title and subpages of the text version. I will note this is not my solution, lest that damn the notion, this is how libraries provide access through their catalogues and the perspective we should be applying to a highly desired format. Aside from their separation and that more detail be added or transcluded from commons / wikidata, I would also prefer the integrity of these works be indicated; there is currently no process of verification for audio that is already served here. This proposal is intended to clarify and facilitate the contribution of these works, and eventually be applied the existing audio be provided here.

The consequence of this might be that an audio book is available when the text is absent or unprepared. Another effect may be that this provides another way to contribute to wikisource. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 02:55, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

So, if there is an audio version of a work that we also have as a written text, the user will have to go to another page to find it, instead of having the relevant audio linked from the text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Correct. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 14:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Other discussions[edit]

Adapting Template:pd/1996 or a new template[edit]

As per previous conversation started by Prosfilaes, from next year US-published works published in 1923 will be out of copyright, and progressively year by year others will follow. We need to start working on whether we will adapt Template:pd/1996 to have wording that says that the work is out of copyright, and reconfigure that template to set triggers. Or whether we are going to implement a new template for post 1922 works. (Full coverage at copyright tags.) — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't the 1996-series of template primarily apply to works published outside the US? For works inside the US, we've been using the 1923-series of templates, and I would assume that it's the 1923-series that would need to be adapted to accommodate US-published works from 1923. It would be odd to have "published before 1923" to be a reason a work is in PD, if works published before 1924 is the actual set of works in PD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

You are correct that the pd/1996 has been non-US first publications to this point, and there would be complications in updating the template. Template:pd/1923 is set, and incrementing Template:PD/19xx is possible, though becomes a lot of templates. It is why I brought up the issue as we have to get the wording right, and look to the easiest means to progress through the years. As 1977 is the next US copyright milestone, maybe it is something like pd/1978 with both a year of birth AND year of publishing as parameters, where year of publishing flicks between copyright and not copyright.

billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Let us keep watching for the rest of 2018 to be sure that the US copyright term is not extended. Then I may want to introduce "PD-pub-95" to mean "public domain for being published more than 95 years ago. Renaming Pd/1923 will probably be too disruptive, so making a new template may be better.--Jusjih (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not going to happen, and part of the reason it's not going to happen is because we are going to rip the hell out of Congress if they try. Being able to say that are already preparing for this change will only help our case. And when the ball drops in New York, I will be uploading 1923 works, and will need an appropriate tag.
I'd like a single PD tag that takes publication year and author death year (if known), and it shouldn't mention in the name the exact rules, just applying all the rules that can be deduced clearly from publication year and author death year. Maybe just naming it PD-old would be too much?--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I support the single-PD template idea. While it would be rather an in-depth template, I don't think it would be particularly difficult to implement (just a series of if-elsif-else conditions). Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The US Copyright Office already considered the copyright terms too long. Mid-term election will be soon. Template:Pd/1923 is heavily used, so renaming will be harder than adding new template like "PD-pub-95". I will wait for the ball to drop in Times Square.--Jusjih (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looking back at this and thinking again, I think that we should be building a template based on 1978 cutoff, aligning with 1923 and 1996 cutoff usage. We already have our subset of use templates (<1923; 1923<1996) that have a series of #if statements (well #ifexpr) that get implemented. At this stage we need to have some output templates that work in main ns that cover 1923 to 1977 at least
  • published in US between 1923-1963 with notice and renewal
  • published in US between 1964-1977 with notice
  • published outside of US between 1923-1977 (two scenarios)

where we will be incrementing per year. So we just use a #if expression for currentyear - 95 > publicationyear where it shows the PD template when true, and copyright violation when it fails. It is a few years until we need to worry about PD-old for post 1923, so we can work that bit out later. If someone uses this new license for a pre-1923 work, we can simply apply the {{pd/1923}} logic.

We still need a licence to display and the wording to use for US users, bottom half replicates pd/1996.billinghurst sDrewth 10:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Bilingual book[edit]

One of the books I am considering to upload and proofread is Modern Czech Poetry, ed. Paul Selver, 1920. The book contains a collection of poems of Czech writers in original Czech language on one page and the English translation of the opposite page, see . The editor probably wanted to present readers both versions and so it seems to me that we should also present here the English translation together with the original poem. What do you think, is it a good idea or should only the English translation be added to the English Wikisource, as original Czech version belongs to the Czech Wikisource?

If both versions could be added, what would be the best way of their transclusion to the main space, so that they stayed next to each other? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

--Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Multilingual works belong at mul:. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. I have looked at it and it seems to be a strange site to me. The main page is just a disambiguation page referring to various language wikisources including and many others. After a long time I found a list of languages included at mul and it seems it is intended for some minor languages, but not for English or Czech. I am trying to browse the site but I am completely lost there, unable to find any local rules or whatever. If the work really belongs there, I am afraid it would be completely lost there with a minimal chance to be found by readers (as the main page sends readers somewhere else) and so it seems a loss of time adding it there. So if the Czech text should not be here at, I will add just the English versions of poems. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: OldWikisource (the multilingual Wikisource) serves several purposes: one is to be the landing page for Wikisource in general, just like how introduces Wikibooks and does for Wikivoyage. Another is to hold material for languages with very small literature corpuses (e.g. some dead languages or Papamiento which is generally only spoken and not written). A third is to act like incubator: where a language subdomain can "graduate" to its own site. Finally, it hosts multilingual works, such as s:mul:Index:Festival Romanistica.pdf or s:mul:Hail Mary or s:mul:Index:Boletín RAE VI (1919).djvu or s:mul:Bukvar staroslovenskoga jezika glagolskimi pismeni za čitanje crkvenih knjig. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
@Koavf: I see, thanks for the explanation very much, now I understand it better. The biggest problem I see with this site is that it was necessary to explain it at all, as the reader does not get this information on the main page and in fact I did not find it even after quite a long time of searching. I was not able to find any page explaining the system of the site, its rules, anything. As a reader I am directed to various single-language sites and do not get the information that multi-lingual works can be found there and how/where I can find them. So I got the impression that adding there some work is like throwing it into a black hole :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Putting this work at the Multilingual Wikisource would mean that users looking for Czech poetry in English on the English Wikisource would not find it. We need to store works in English on this Wikisource so people looking for works in English can find them. We could have a link from the relevant author pages here to the Multilingual Wikisource, but I don't see what that gains us.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: If the work is a collection of single-language works, rather than a single multi-language work, this is frequently handled by splitting the content between enWS and the relevant language WS. For examples, have a look at my laWS user page. — If the text is completely parallel, it may also be acceptable to only transcribe the English content and leave the rest to other editors; see Index:Aida Libretto English.djvu and Index:National anthem act Canada.pdf. — You may also find the templates documented at Template:Iwpage/doc useful. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I see, thanks. I just thought that as the editor of the book wanted to present the English readers the English translation of the poems along with the original text, we could keep the original text too. But if you feel it is better to add only the English text as in your examples, it is fine to me as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I think it is (always) better to have both the English text (on enWS) and the Czech text (on czWS). You will see that the examples I gave on my laWS user page (especially The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church where the original and translation are presented in parralel) are like this: the English and Latin texts are both present and accounted for. The last two examples were provided because you said "I will add just the English versions of poems". If you are not comfortable working in multiple wikisources, it is completely acceptable for you to only do the English parts and to leave the Czech part for someone else at a future time. For example, I did this with Aida, because I don't speak Italian and was not comfortable trying to work on itWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: You can have a look at this work. Hrishikes (talk) 12:58, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Hrishikes: I don't know if this is the best method for this particular collection. I thought we generally discouraged formatting these works in parallel like this, except where it is clearly inappropriate to separate the original from the translation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: As for cs.wikisource: the poems are much older than this bilingual publication, so it would be much better to add them to from the original Czech sources (in fact some of them are already there). Besides that, there is no clear consensus on as for using proofreading extension and the index and page namespaces. Inf fact conservative local admins oppose it very much and discourage contributors from using it, and I gave up fighting with them. Another problem is technical: cs wikisource uses a lot of templates which are not compatible with en.wikisource environment. Once I tried to transclude something from there to and failed for this reason.
So I personally do like the solution suggested by @Hrishikes:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to exclude part of the work, and would think that can be duplicated at the Czech wiki source. The attempts to avoid this situation just begets problems, and putting it where it won't be seen is unhelpful. Notwithstanding some questionable interpretation of a rule inferred from the historical split of the wikisource library, the complete text can be welcomed at this site; here is a featured text Le Corbeau that displays both languages (having just restored that version from "experiments" and an undiscussed revert). It is preferable that users concern themselves with solutions to matters that have defined and undesirable consequences, Yet again I ask, what are those consequences in this situation? — CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi all, on other Wikisources (at least the French, the Latin, the Breton and the Multilingual - that I know of), we put each parts of a multilingual book in the corresponding Wikisource (with all the templates and tools to make it easy and smooth). Is it not the rules also on the English Wikisource? (if not, it will create problem for bilingual books containing English, like on Le Corbeau where I thought I was applying the usual formatting to only discover afterwards that I was not by Cygnis insignis). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: What tools and templates to make it easy? I'm not familiar with how other Wikisources do it, and I think at least part of any difference may be from ignorance and reinventing the wheel, instead of choosing to do different things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: there is a lot of them but mainly the {{iwpage}} (and alike) to do interwiki transclusion and display a text from a Wikisource in an other Wikisource (no duplication, if a mistake is corrected on one side the correction appears in the other side) and the DoubleWiki extension to display side-by-side bilingual texts (it doesn't work well anymore for Le Corbeau (Mallarmé) since now we have french and english on the english side thanks to @Cygnis insignis:). On my side, I work on a lot of different Wikisource (and I'm sysop on 4 of them) so it is always a bit strange to interact with monowikisource people (who indeed reinvent the wheel too many often). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I am likely to endorse any view by prosifilaes, on the basis their view is near identical to mine >95%, but in this case I have lost the thread that leads to a solution (a typo or such?). Is that solution transclusions across wikis? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Transclusions across wikis is one solution (currently, mainly used for pages), but for texts a display across wiki is more often favoured, it's even easier than a transclusion (usually, not for case like Le Corbeau (Mallarmé) since it's not possible to align two languages with one…). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I upload Research works done in our University here?[edit]

Can I upload research works does by me, my friends and some of my faculty here? If yes, how can I prove that they are public domain if I'm the first person place them on internet and they haven't published them yet. In this way how can they prove that they doesn't have any sort of objections? IM3847 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

In general, Wikisource does not accept original works. See Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Works created after 1922:. Analytical and Scientific works can be included if the work has been published following peer review, or if the author or researcher is considered notable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
right - you could prove they are public domain by publishing in an open access journal with a CC0 license. if they are open pre-publication draft of paywall journals, you would then upload them to your website, with the CC0 license. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Some of them are published on our college library site, now can I upload them too?
You'll have to be a bit more specific about what is proposed to be uploaded. Self-publication on a website is not sufficient in itself to merit inclusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I've written a research paper on a few Natural disasters in India which contains a few desktop studies. This paper was published in our University Library. No can I upload it to Wikisource? If yes then how? IM3847 (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Could you provide a bibliographical citation for the publication discussed? If they are accessible online, could you provide a link to them? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
[1] This is the link of the journal published by my classmate.
I think the main problem with works published in this journal is that the journal states at the bottom of the main page that all rights are reserved. What is more, the guidelines for the submissions of papers require filling and sending Copyright form, which states that "In the case of republication of the whole, part, or parts thereof, in periodicals or reprint publications by a third party, written permission must be obtained from the Editor-in-Chief of IJRET." So you would probably need such a permission stating that the article can be released into public domain. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:09, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: Can you please check [2] this link too.—IM3847 (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-47[edit]

23:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey vote[edit]

18:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Index:Growing Black Locust Trees.djvu[edit]

Hi, can someone please help me with the copyright tag for this? Is it {{PD-USGov}}? Jpez (talk) 06:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

{{PD-USGov}} is appropriate. It was written by a Forest Service employee, which is an agency in the US Department of Agriculture -- a part of the federal government. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I think so too. Thanks! Jpez (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
there is a custom USDA FS license on commons, which i put on, not 70. Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The FS template explicitly says it's for images though. (Not even sure what that license even exists since it uses the same rationale as US Gov...) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
the scan of a book is an image sort of. never underestimate the propensity of commons to add extraneous detail, including which branch of government did the work. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Match and Split across subpages[edit]

Is there a way to run Match and Split on a work that is split across several pages, without having to manually run it on each subpage? Either natively or using some sort of gadget or script or third-party tool ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthologies x Collections[edit]

Is there any difference between Category:Anthologies and Category:Collections? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Anthologies are usually assembled by a compiler (not the author) and typically contain works from multiple authors. Collections typically feature works from a single author, and may be collected by the author himself.
However, anthologies can also be assembled as selection of the "best" literature or "representative" (as determined by the compiler), and collections can be assembled as "comprehensive" (regardless of quality) or as "focused" (narrow subject).
There is no hard and fast distinction in the terms, but generally an anthology is not assembled by the author(s); covers multiple authors; and was assembled by the compiler with some theme, form, or genre in mind, without regard to the source nor original context of the works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I see. However, the Wiktionary quotation at the top of Category:Anthologies stated just: An anthology is a collection of literary works such as poems or short stories, which was quite confusing. The proof that people were confused was that two out of five publications included in this category have only one author ( Earth-Hunger and Other Essays and Miscellaneous Poems to 1920. So I have rewritten the introduction to the category as follows: This category includes collections of works by multiple authors. For collections of works by a single author see Category:Collections.
Another possibility would be merging the categories because of lack of simple distinction. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
There is value in distinguishing between a collection and an anthology. The lack of coordinated curation in our categories is not limited to these two examples. Wikisource categorization has typically taken a low-priority here. Many (most?) works lack proper categorization, and most categories have not been tidied in ages.
Note: There are also some works that resemble anthologies or collections, but are most often treated as a single work. The Hebrew Bible was written by multiple authors over an extended period, and assembled by compilers, but is generally treated as a single work by virtue of the relative stability of the component works over a long period. Virgil's Eclogues are a borderline case between a collection and a work. They are always printed together and have a set number and sequence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Works like Slavonic Fairy Tales would probably qualify as a Collection. The tales are not reprinted works from other authors, but are being told by the author of the book. Anthologies collect published works, without creative effort from the compiler. Arts and Crafts Essays would probably fit better as a collection because the essays were written for a specific event; they were not compiled later, but were purposely dedicated by the authors who knew the essays would be collected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Slavonic Fairy Tales/The Wicked Wood-Fays is a tale by K. J. Erben, while Slavonic Fairy Tales/The Wise Judgment is by J. Košín z Radostova, so I thought the book should fall under Anthologies. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, the title page did not make that clear. If these are works by particular authors, then Anthology is a better description. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Advanced Search[edit]

Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Community Health Metrics Kit consultation[edit]

This message is also available in other languages.

The Community Health Metrics Kit is a new project to measure more aspects of our communities. If you are interested in metrics, statistics, and measurement of editing and contributing, please join us on Meta to discuss how and what the new project should measure! JSutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of the metrics will not apply to projects like Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wikispecies, or Wiktionary. The last three do not have any "biographies" to count for the "gender bias" metric. It looks as though this metrics project is geared primarily towards looking at Wikipedias, and will not apply elsewhere. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-48[edit]

22:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguating Shakespeare[edit]

Anyone who has looked through our current coverage of Shakespeare's plays will have noticed that it's an execrable mess right now. Most of our copies are not backed by scans, and our Versions pages have lengthy titles, if they exist at all. Multiple transcription projects exist for some plays, but usually in various stages of neglect.

The 400th anniversary of the publication of the First Folio is 2023, and this date may bring interested individuals to Wikisource. It seems only right to at least organize what we have, and set things up to make it easier to find transcription projects and various editions of plays.

Toward that end I did some poking around last night to see where things stand. The first big hurdle is that our Disambiguation and Versions pages associated with titles like "Hamlet" and "Macbeth" are in bad shape and have not been edited in a long time. I am willing to put in the work to clean up these pages, but want to establish a standard for the naming of these pages. Because some of them have been around for a long time, and because of the high-profile nature of Shakespeare's plays, I am putting forward a proposal backed by a few case studies before proceeding.

Case studies for three of Shakespeare's tragedies
Title of Play (LoC) current versions page sample titles

Hamlet Hamlet (Shakespeare) The Tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of Denmarke

The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark: A Tragedy
The Tragedy of Hamlet
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark

King Lear none The Tragedie of King Lear

The Tragedy of King Lear
The Chronicle History of the Life and Death of King Lear and His Three Daughters

Romeo and Juliet The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet The Tragedie of Romeo and Ivliet

The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet
The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedie of Romeo and Iuliet
Romeo and Juliet

As can be seen from the case studies, there is no uniformity of titles for these three plays. Not only is there significant variation in spelling and overall title length, but even structure and form of the titles vary. Therefore, it seems to me that selecting one particular spelling, or one specific title, to represent all forms of any given play would be neither helpful nor intuitive.

Furthermore, doing so would also eliminate the possibility of hosting an edition with that title at that location, and would preclude the possibility of a disambiguation or versions page for that title. That is, if there were more than one work titled "The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet", possibly a work about the play in addition to editions of the play itself, we would have no means of disambiguating these titles if the Versions page for the play was located at that title.

I therefore propose that all of Shakespeare's plays be given versions pages of the form:

(1) Macbeth (Shakespeare), for most plays, where the simple title adheres to the common base name used for his plays in the Library of Congress database, instead of a longer title such as The Tragedy of Macbeth.
(2) Henry IV, Part 3 (Shakespeare) for the historical plays. For these latter plays, the Library of Congress includes "King" in the title and separates the "Part" with a period instead of a comma. The result of having this full stop within the play's name causes some odd rendering on VIAF. Wikidata avoids the problem by using a comma, which is standard for most bibliographic references I have seen, including the Pelican Shakespeare. The Cambridge Shakespeare uses neither a period nor a comma, and the Riverside Shakespeare uses the confusing form 3 Henry VI to abbreviate the same title. The Yale Shakespeare spells the title out in full as The Third Part of King Henry the Sixth.

This proposal has the additional advantage of not forcing a move of any existing copies of plays to make way for a Versions page.

I set up Hamlet (Shakespeare) yesterday as an example of how I imagine the Versions pages ought to look.

Support and comments are welcome. But if there are no serious objections, and a general positive view of my proposal, I will begin work this coming weekend to clean up the Versions and Disambiguation pages associated with titles of Shakespeare's plays. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, this is entirely reasonable and would be a great improvement. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
A question: are you proposing to standardise all of them with the (Shakespeare) disambiguator, or only those that share a title with other works on this site? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
We already have Reference works with entries for Shakespeare's plays (vide Characters of Shakespear's Plays as an example), and almost every play has at least one commentary, retelling, or derived work with the same or nearly the same title. It seems preferable to go ahead with (Shakespeare) now, rather than having to move those pages again later. Shakespeare's plays are of sufficient stature that I think we ought to select stable locations for the Versions pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, after seeing the example disambig set up, it saves everything from getting more and more cluttered and lost. -05:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support and take it on over to wikidata as well. (which i see you have dome) Slowking4SvG's revenge 17:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


Working on transclusion for the current POTM (Confederate Military History, vol. 3), there's one section which spans over half the book: Confederate Military History/Volume 3/Biographical. Currently the page transcludes 630 pages and hits the post‐expand include size of 2MB, leaving a number of links at the bottom untranscluded.

 NewPP limit report
 Parsed by mw1335
 Cached time: 20181127051932
 Cache expiry: 1900800
 Dynamic content: false
 CPU time usage: 2.804 seconds
 Real time usage: 4.763 seconds
 Preprocessor visited node count: 49817/1000000
 Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
 Post‐expand include size: 2097152/2097152 bytes
 Template argument size: 67171/2097152 bytes
 Highest expansion depth: 8/40
 Expensive parser function count: 3/500
 Unstrip recursion depth: 1/20
 Unstrip post‐expand size: 2072395/5000000 bytes
 Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 0/400
 Lua time usage: 0.046/10.000 seconds
 Lua memory usage: 1.61 MB/50 MB

Is there any way to increase the $wgMaxArticleSize variable by the server admins? -Einstein95 (talk) 05:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Sidestep the problem. Why be so greedy as to include all of the Biographical section as a single, indigestible lump? Better by far to break it into sub-chapters at every major name change (hint: look for the embedded {{dhr}}s!) 08:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Because that's not how it is done in the ToC. Plus if I was to divide it, who would get the images? -Einstein95 (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
My own sidestep would be to split by first letter and use an alpha TOC template. Remember we don't have to slavishly reproduce a printed work. It's more important to make the work accessible. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Best practices and workarounds aside, who is actually able to modify this value? Can we do it, would we have to go through Phabricator, or what? Just curious. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Phabricator. Hoping, that you will be more lucky than our, attempt over a year ago at phab:T158242. So good luck! Ankry (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
And note, that the page mentioned in this ticket works now because we use page code substitution (see the talk page for details). This way we may raise the real limit to about 4MB (2MB trancluded + 2MB "raw" wikicode), but the cost is that the main ns. page content is not updated automatically when the Page ns. content is modified (actually a bot does the job now). Ankry (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Right. We've run into this issue before -- though it usually shows up with super complicated templates like the old TOC templates. The powers that be don't seem to be too keen on bumping the limit. That being said, I support IP's suggestion that we impose an artificial structure onto the section -- eg. /Biogaphical/A, /Biographical/B. The TOC would, of course, still link to /Biographical. We've done this in other places and for other kinds of works as well. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Slow loading of scan[edit]

Am I the only one who is recently suffering slow loading of scans when creating new pages? It does not happen very often, but at random moments the scan does load very slowly, or not at all. I think this happens more, in the last few weeks, than before. Do other users experience the same problem? --Dick Bos (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

From time to time, I have the same issue. Because I have needed few scans for the past few days, I cannot say whether it is a problem for me now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have experienced this problem too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You can try Zdzislaw's gadget that I use in my common.js (first line). It preloads the next page image while in edit mode. IMO, this speeds up loading significantly. Ankry (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you @Ankry. I installed the tool. But the thing is that in larger projects I often do all the odd pages, and then all the even pages, so then the tool is of no use. --Dick Bos (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dick Bos: Not exactly: after you process all the odd pages, all the even should load fast :) Alternatively, you can try to preload all images for the book (1024px wide unless there are non-standard settings or the first page has lower res.) in a batch job. I noticed that most time is spent to generate images from djvu; If they have already been generated (maybe, by sb else request) and are cached on servers, they should load fast. Ankry (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


I have questions about the ignorance of {{DISPLAYTITLE}} here. The greatest question is would be the reason(s) for the ignorance...--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your question makes no sense. Templates cannot be ignorant nor informed. They are inanimate objects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Category:Pages with ignored display titles. Ignorance. A verb. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Your question still makes no sense. Also, ignorance is a noun. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Software activated. I get the creeps using punctuation in filenames (having managed files on my computer and for web display), and not all punctuation that occurs in titles are allowed as filenames. DISPLAYTITLE fixes many actual problems and my creepy feelings, yet it has been de-activated here. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I have fixed the page you were having trouble with. I cannot help you with your feelings. If you will follow community norms, this sort of problem can be easily avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: We will not change our naming conventions based on creepy feelings. If you have examples of actual problems we can discuss actual problems. We have had no need to modify the title display of page titles, nor are we likely to in future. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I was not having a problem with it, beyond my lack of understanding of reasons for it being disabled here. There must be at least one good reason(?)... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
But that isn't what your "question" said, was it? You demanded the community explain ignorance to you. We have done that; the ignorance was your own. You now know how to avoid the problems you were creating for yourself. The "new" version of the question was answered before you posted your question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Their original question was poorly phrased: "Why is there ignorance of DISPLAYTITLE on Wikisource" should be read as "Why does Wikisource [software, not userbase] ignore the DISPLAYTITLE tag". It is the same question. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of this, does anyone have an objection to me deleting {{DISPLAYTITLE}} which is not used and is easily confused with the Magic Word {{DISPLAYTITLE:}} ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
None, though you may wish to (a) post in the Deletions page for proper process, and (b) delete {{Trim2}} as well, which was created at the same time by the same User. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: I believe I have solved the mystery. The DISPLAYTITLE magic word is not disabled. However, it only works if the displayed title is the same canonical form as the actual page title. Replacing ' with does not result in the same canonical form, so the DISPLAYTITLE was ignored when you tried to use it in that way. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: this: commons:Category:HMS Terror (ship, 1813)! Maybe I could have used "’". ((i'll read the docs. . . .)) --RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Placing template for globally locked accounts[edit]

Hi, I am looking to comment regarding locked accounts (with same edits as well). Today I have created template on EN Wikisource: {{Locked global account}} which should be placed on currently locked accounts. Thanks! 11:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

comment you should have sought a consensus before doing that. i suggest that importing this drama is disruptive. i look forward to deleting this template and an ip block. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
That template does not appear to serve any useful purpose. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions#Template:Locked global account. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Granularity on progress color bar?[edit]

As I look at the progress color bar at top of The_Sea_Lady it looks completely green, even though (at the moment) there are 24 out of 300 text pages not validated. I check the (HTML) page source and see

<td class="quality4" style="width:100%;"></td>

meaning "completely validated".

Playing with counts of pages, including or discarding empty pages and/or non-text pages, I keep coming up with a figure of 92% or 93% validated. Yet we see a 100% complete green bar.

Is the color bar computed using some large granularity? Like 10% increments? That would produce such a mistaken impression as 'done' with dozens as yet unvalidated?

(Or is this similar to Microsoft's version of a progress bar, that says 100% for the last 20 minutes of some process, or worse, goes backward!) Shenme (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The bar you are looking at is only for the pages currently displayed, which consist solely of the front matter. The progress bar indicates progress only of pages transcluded to the particular page title you are currently viewing, and the front matter has been completely validated. The unvalidated pages are from end chapters of the work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-49[edit]

16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

E. P. Robins[edit]

Can we find evidence either to confirm or to reject my suspicion that the E. P. Robins who translated the current PotM, Tales of To-day and Other Days, is Elizabeth Robins Pennell? She seems to be in the right period, and the right sort of person, a prolific writer, and was known to write under noms-de-plume, including jumbled up versions of her name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

An E.P. Robins (can't say whether the same) published several other translations from the French during the same time period, with different publishers. Présence de Stendhal aux Etats-Unis p. 87 has a brief discussion about the identity of the translator which you might view here if Google Books is willing to play nice, they only appear to narrow it down to an American. It might be circumstantially interesting to compare the rate of Pennell's known output of work with the years of the translations published under that name and see if she has a lull at the right time. I've hopelessly lost the link now but the US copyright catalog in which Tales of To-day and Other Days was registered listed the publishing company as the party, so no help there, but maybe looking up other works under the name may provide information. Prosody (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
That helps a little. The fact that the translations were published in London, but that the translator used Americanisms, does fit with my suspicion. Elizabeth Robins Pennell was an American, but spent most of her life in London. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The author also appears to have published a few translations under the name "E. P. Robbins" -Einstein95 (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Selection of the Wikisource Community User Group representative to the Wikimedia Summit[edit]

Dear all,

Sorry for writing in English and cross-posting this message.

The Wikisource Community User Group could send one representative to the Wikimedia Summit 2019 (formerly "Wikimedia Conference"). The Wikimedia Summit is a yearly conference of all organizations affiliated to the Wikimedia Movement (including our Wikisource Community User Group). It is a great place to talk about Wikisource needs to the chapters and other user groups that compose the Wikimedia movement. For context, there is a short report on what happened last year. The deadline is short and to avoid the confusing vote on the Wikisource-I mailing list of last year, we created a page on meta to decide who will be the representative of the user group to the Wikimedia Summit.

The vote will be in two parts:

  1. until December 7th, people can add their name and a short explanation on who they are and why they want to go to the summit. Nomination of other people is allowed, the nominated person should accept their nomination.
  2. starting December 7th, and for a week, the community vote to designate the representative.

Please feel free to ask any question on the wikisource-I mailing list or on the talk page.

For the Wikisource Community User Group, Tpt (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Author linked to Wikispecies[edit]

Author:Cyrus Thomas is linked to Wikispecies in the Sister projects section and the text of the link is "taxonomy", which does not seem appropriate for an author. Is it possible that the text was different for links from author pages? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Since it's the {{author}} template, I assume it should always be text relevant for an Author page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The link is from the {{plain sister}} template within the Author header, so it is possible to be different when transcluded in other namespaces. As it happens, however, it is not different. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
None of the names change depending on the namespace. The code responsible for the issue is line 13 in Module:Plain sister. -Einstein95 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
If it is not possible to change the text depending on namespace, maybe a different text could be chosen instead of "taxonomy", e. g. "Wikispecies page". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

New Wikimedia password policy and requirements[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikisource Community User Group representative vote[edit]

Dear all,

Sorry for writing in English and cross-posting this message.

Following the previous message, the vote for the representative of the Wikisource Community User Group to the Wikimedia Summit 2019 is now open.

There is two great candidates on page on meta to decide who will be the representative of the user group to the Wikimedia Summit. You can support a candidate now. All active Wikisource users can vote. The vote is ending on December 14, 2018.

Feel free to ask any question on the wikisource-I mailing list or on the talk page.

Thank you!

For the Wikisource Community User Group, Tpt (talk) December 8, 2018 at 18:53 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-50[edit]

17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

youtube invoking spam filter[edit]

I can't properly create this page, because the spam filter gets invoked: The battle for open/Bibliography What's the best way to proceed? -Pete (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I added those specific links to the whitelist. If it's a continuing problem, we could discuss adding youtube itself to the whitelist, but right now adding specific links used in a bibliography like that seems like the right way to go.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


It was suggested by Cygnis insignis (talk) that I post here to let folks know I am doing this.

I used to do a lot of work on the SpokenWikipedia project. That project isn't very active anymore. Lately I've been more interested in recording Wikisource text, specifically short stories. I've had a lot of fun with the old sci-fi magazines. Some examples: The Mentanicals, The Carnivore. I have no idea if anyone is interested in hearing these recordings, but I enjoy doing them even though they often take a long time.

Now that I've introduced myself, there is an open issue for me over at Index talk:Democracy in America (Reeve, v. 1).djvu, if anyone can help. That is, if collectively we do want spoken stuff on Wikisource. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 14:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue for discussion, then please post it here. Wikisource is a small community, so our discussion in centralized. Hosting a discussion in the Talk page of a DjVu scan is a weird place to discuss audio files, especially since the issue is not about the scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the heads up. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 16:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)== Spoken sources ==

Copied from Index talk:Democracy in America (Reeve, v. 1).djvu where I posted by mistake.

I need some help. I created a spoken version of the first chapter (so far) and have no way of adding it to the Chapter 01 page. Generally, the {{listen}} tag goes in the notes parameter of the {{header}} template. If I add {{listen}} above or below the <pages> code, the listen gadget is placed where it does not look good. My understanding of the header parameter of the <pages> tag is that it can choose between different styles of header or header fields can be overwritten. Seems that the former method is used in the pages associated with this work. I don't know enough about how all this works to boldly edit this index page to try to get a second styled heading. Can anyone help? If it is impossible, can you suggest a way to list the spoken work so that it is related to this source? PopularOutcasttalk2me! 17:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oy, that work is a mess. It looks as though the creator did not follow Wikisource standards, and the whole volume may need to be cleaned up to current style. The first volume is not identified as the first volume, but the second volume is. It also needs manual headers if you're going to link in the spoken files, which is one reason manual headers are preferred.
It looks like you need an experienced editor to (1) move a lot of pages, (2) correct all the links after the move, and (3) switch to manual headers. This won't be a quick job unless someone has a clever bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
To specifically answer the question, does a work require manual headers in order to modify the contents of the "notes" field in the header? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup, if it's possible to do this without moving to manual headers then it would be the easiest way. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, the PAGE tag pulls all information from the Index page only, using a toggle value. If you need to add or change anything at all with regard to the information displayed in the header, then you have to use a manual header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks EncycloPetey. Putting my recording in may not be worth the effort to move all that. I doubt very much that I will read the entire work. Over at Wikipedia we had a page that listed all the spoken articles so people could quickly find files. That's an alternative. That Wikipedia page linked to the article which had the embedded play thingamabob but there's no reason it can't just link to Commons. PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Another option would be to record for LibriVox, and organize everything there. Then you can supply a single link to the recording. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, LibriVox is an option. It's not one I am likely to take. Like, I said, it's not that important. The recordings will be over on Commons if anyone ever wants them. In any case, apparently it has already been recorded in its entirety by someone on LibriVox. They linked to it from Wikipedia rather than from Wikisource (which is what I was considering doing). PopularOutcasttalk2me! 23:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing window woes (again)[edit]

Today, I find that I can no longer adjust the size of the header or footer window when side-by-side editing. Before today, I was able to drag the corner of either window to enlarge or shrink it. But today they now appear at a fixed size, and one that is much larger than they used to do.

I assume this is a side-effect of the latest update. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Appears to be due to phab:T209939Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I've made a patch to fix this, by making the header/body/footer ratio 1:8:1. However, as Tpt pointed out, the earlier fix for the layout has meant that the resize handles (lower right corner of the textarea, for dragging to change the height) no longer work. My patch actually turns these off (instead of showing ineffective controls) but how should resizing work for these? It seems to me that if one makes the header bigger, then the body should get smaller: i.e. that the three textareas should always take up the same amount of space, but their relative heights can be adjusted easily. Comments welcome on phab:T209939. Sam Wilson 15:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Other display oddities[edit]

Are any patrollers seeing the same problem with Page:The Word and its Inspiration - vol 2.pdf/3?

Instead of [Mark as patrolled], as we used to see, I am seeing the left bracket on one line, the text on the second line and the right bracket on the third line. I am seeing this on any unpatrolled page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Same here. Seems to be caused by the CSS .prp-page-content > * {display: flex;} which, to be honest, I'm not very good with CSS flex boxes and I don't know why it's using it. I think someone must have changed the HTML/CSS of the Page namespace because I also don't remember the text on the left side being right up against the middle vertical dividing line without any padding which looks bad IMO. --Riley AJ (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I believe there used to be padding on both sides. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Note the bug phab:T209939 referenced in above discussion by Beleg Tâl. Beleg Tâl made a note in Phab asking the developers to look at the above discussion. I've added another note asking them to look at _this_ discussion also. Shenme (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

interwiki link wikilivres[edit]

Please redirect the interwiki link wikilivres to the new address S8w4 (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: could you do the honours? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-51[edit]

20:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Sub-disambig pages by author[edit]

It is a common practice to have works by the same title and by the same author on a separate disambig page from other works by that same title. You can see many such examples at Song, such as Song (Anne Brontë), Song (Burns), Song (Coates) and so forth. I don't think that this really makes sense, since all of those works on those sub-pages are called simply "Song" and should really be listed at Song directly.

Does anyone have substantial objections to me merging such sub-pages when I see them in the wild? @Londonjackbooks: you seem to have created some of these sub-disambig pages, so I'd value your opinion here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Some of those are versions pages, not disambiguation. However, if they are indeed different works that merely share the same title and author, then I agree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am not talking about versions pages, those are completely different and have nothing to do with this. I am talking about separate disambig pages that are created to disambiguate between different works with the same title, but which for some reason have been split off into separate pages by author. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
I am also not talking about editions pages like Song (Aldington) or redirects like Song (Le Gallienne), for the record. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)